disable_monitor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the meaningful side effect that the monitor is removed from the layout, not merely powered off. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible (via enable_monitor) or how windows on that monitor are affected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb, resource and effect all appear before any qualifier.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the core effect, but omits recovery (enable_monitor), impact on open windows/workspaces, and whether the setting persists, which an agent would need to act safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ('Monitor name' is documented in the schema). The description adds nothing about name matching (case sensitivity, partial names, or how to discover valid names via list_monitors), so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('monitor') and adds the concrete effect '(turns it off and removes from layout)', which distinguishes it from enable_monitor and implies a difference from set_monitor_dpms. The differentiation from set_monitor_dpms is only implicit, not named, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical implies when to use it (when you want the monitor off and out of the layout), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over set_monitor_dpms or mirror_monitor, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the monitor must be currently enabled).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.